Ronald Reagan - 2nd Annual CPAC Convention
March 1, 1975
Let Them Go Their Way
Source: https://patriotpost.us/pages/428-ronald-reagan-let-them-go-their-way
Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached "the gospel," in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.
Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.
Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.
But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.
The "Young Turks" had campaigned against "evil politicians." They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority. And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals -- and pursue them they will.
I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans -- Republicans, Democrats and independents -- classify themselves as "conservatives" than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?
These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to "spread the word."
In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business -- including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!
In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues -- to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state -- that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation's ability to protect itself.
A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.
Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions -- the leaders of the parties.
They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.
The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I'm sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.
If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.
When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.
The "lab test" of my theory – California -- was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: "We’re spending $1 million more a day than we're taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!" That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.
California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation's caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.
We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.
We instituted a policy of "cut, squeeze and trim" and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.
After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.
It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we'd run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.
That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.
Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as "an unnecessary expenditure of public funds."
For more than two decades governments -- federal, state, local -- have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.
We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.
We also turned over -- for the first time in almost a quarter of a century -- a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.
Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.
Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is "60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy." That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.
Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation -- a recession, if you will.
We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.
In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.
What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?
Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say "no."
This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called "Economics and the Public Purpose." In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.
Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?
Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.
We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!
Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.
We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a "first strike" possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.
I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged -- in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners -- to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.
Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.
We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, "Deal falsely with our God," we shall be made "a story and byword throughout the world."
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people's earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing -- adjusting the brackets to the cost of living -- so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government's share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of "peace at any price."
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
"In his first Inaugural Address, nearly a century and three-quarters ago, President Thomas Jefferson defined the aims of his Administration. He said, 'A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of 'good government.' Jefferson believed the people were the best agents of their own destinies, and that the task of government was not to direct the people but to create an environment of ordered freedom in which the people could pursue those destinies in their own way. But he also knew that from the very beginning the tendency of government has been to become player as well as umpire. 'What has destroyed the liberty and the rights of men in every government that has ever existed under the sun?', Jefferson asked, and then answered,'The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.'
"If Jefferson could return today, I doubt that he would be surprised either at what has happened in America, or at the result. When a nation loses its desire or ability to restrain growth and concentration of power, the floodgates are open and the results are predictable.
"The Fiscal Year 1976 ends four days before our bicentennial. At the end of this fiscal year, government at all levels will have absorbed 37 percent of the Gross National Product and 44 percent of: our total personal income. We destroy the value of our pensions and savings with an inflation rate that soars to 12 percent a year, at the same time we suffer unemployment rates of eight and nine percent.
Every minute that I speak to you here, the federal government spends another $700,000. Now, let me make it clear, there is no connection between my speaking to you and their spending.. I'd stop talking if they'd stop spending. But, Washington is spending a billion dollars every day and going into debt another billion-and-a-third dollars every week. I think it would hardly surprise Jefferson to learn that the real spendable weekly income of the average American worker is lower than it was a decade ago --even though in these 10 years that same worker has increased his productivity by 23 percent. Now, that is taking bread from the mouth of labor --the bread it has earned.
"If government continues to take that bread for the next 25 years at the same rate of increase it has in the last 40, the percentage of Gross National Product government consumes will be 66 percent --two-thirds of all our output --by the end of this century. A single proposal now before Congress, Senator Kennedy's national health insurance plan, would push that share of the Gross National Product consumed by government from 37 to more than 45 percent, all by itself. That's rather expensive 'Teddy Care'.
"This absorption of revenue by all levels of government, the alarming rate of inflation, and the rising total of unemployment all stem from a single source: The belief that government, particularly the federal government, has the answer to our ills, and that the proper method of dealing with social problems is the transfer of power from the private to the public sector, and within the public sector from state and local governments to the ultimate power center in Washington.
"This collectivist, centralizing approach, by whatever name or party label it wears, has created our economic problems. Government is not the solution --government is the problem. Not only does it impose an intolerable tax burden, greater than any nation in history has ever been able to survive, but then it spends over and beyond even this, creating horrendous inflation. By saddling the economy with an ever-increasing network of regulations and controls, it has raised the consumer prices, destroyed jobs and choked off the vital supplies of food and energy.
"Last year, in spite of the ambitious programs to create jobs and stimulate the economy, the private sector lost 2.3 million jobs. The public payroll increased by 715,000. Now, as if that were not enough, the crushing weight of the central government has distorted the relationship between the levels of government, and worse, between the people and their government.
"The individual feels helpless, unable to have any influence on the government he is supposed to control. The state and local communities have been demeaned into little more than administrative districts --bureaucratic subdivisions of a big brother government in Washington. Thousands of towns and neighborhoods have seen the peace disturbed by bureaucrats and social planners, through busing, questionable educational programs and attacks on family unity.
"Even so liberal an observer as Richard Goodwin could identify what he correctly called 'the most troubling political fact of our age: that the growth of central power has been accompanied by a swift and continual reduction of significance of the individual citizen, transforming him --from a wielder into an object of authority.' At this rate, we'll soon live in a land where everything that isn't prohibited is compulsory.
"Now, it isn't good enough to approach this confusion by saying that we'll try to make it more efficient or responsible; or that we'll modify an aspect here or there or do a little less of all these objectionable things than will the Washington bureaucrats and those who supported them. This may have worked in the past, but not any longer. The problem must be attacked at its source. All Americans must be rallied to preserve the good things that remain in our society and to restore those good things that have been lost. We can, and we must, reverse the flow of power to Washington --not simply slow it or paper over the problem with attractive phrases or cosmetic tinkering; this would give the appearance of change but leave the basic machinery untouched.
"In fact, it reminds me of that short fable of Tolstoy's: 'I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to lighten his load by all possible means --except by getting off his back.'
"What I propose is nothing less than a systematic transfer of authority and resources to the states --a program of creative federalism for America's third century.
"Federal authority has clearly failed to do the job. Indeed, it has created more problems in welfare, education, housing, food stamps, Medicaid, community and regional development, and~revenue sharing, to name a few. The sums involved and the potential savings to the taxpayer are large. Transfer of authority in whole or part in all these areas would reduce the outlay of the federal government by more than $90 billion, using the spending levels of Fiscal 1976.
"With such a savings, it would be possible to balance the federal budget, make an initial five-billion-dollar payment on the national debt, and cut the federal personal income tax burden of every American by an average of 23 percent. By taking such a step we could quickly liberate much of our economy and political system from the dead hand of federal interference, with a benefical impact on every aspect of our daily lives.
"Not included in such a transfer would be those functions of government which are national rather than local in nature; and others which are handled through trust arrangements outside the general revenue structure. In addition to national defense and space, some of these areas are Social Security, Medicare, and other old-age programs; enforcement of federal law; veterans affairs; some aspects of agriculture, energy, transportation, and environment; TVA and other multi-state public-works projects; and certain types of research.
"Few would want to end the federal government's role as a setter of national goals and standards --I doubt that anyone would want to do that. And no one would want to rule out the role for Washington in those few areas where its influence has been important and benign; crash efforts like the Manhattan and Apollo projects, and massive self-liquidating programs like the Homestead Act and the land-grant colleges. And, certainly the federal government must take an active role in assuring this nation an adequate supply of energy.
"Keeping these programs in Washington does not mean there would be no effort at reform. To the contrary.
"Regulatory agencies dealing with non-monopoly business and industries must set a date certain for ending federal price-fixing; and in the immediate years ahead should achieve an end to regulations which prevent the entry of newcomers in the various lines of business or industry, fore-stalling competition.
"Steps must be taken to keep spending and borrowing by off-budget agencies under control; and our major trust funds must be reformed to ensure solvency and accountability. Particularly important is the need to save Social Security from the colossal debt that threatens the future well-being of millions of our citizens, even while it overtaxes the workers at a growing and extravagant rate. Today, the average worker is buying Social Security --what amounts to fifth-rate term and liability insurance --and he is paying three or four times what he would have to pay for that same thing out on the open market.
"I think we must put a statutory limit on the growth of our money supply so that growth does not exceed the gain in productivity. This is the only way we can restore the strength and purchasing power of our anemic dollar. I can remember when we used to say that nothing could replace the American dollar --and now it practically has.
"We must reform the tax system and we can begin by radically simplifying the method of tax collection so the average citizen can figure out what he owes in a matter of minutes without legal help. We're the only country in the world where it takes more brains to figure out the tax than it does to earn the income. Genuine tax reform would also make it more rewarding to save than to borrow. Surtax brackets should be indexed to keep government from profiting from inflation and the individual from being penalized for trying to keep pace with the increased cost of living. Such reforms, plus sharp reductions in the income tax, would vastly increase every American's purchasing power.
"Today, taxes are the biggest family expense item. It is greater than food, shelter and clothing combined. Last year, according to a study by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, income taxes at all levels rose by 26.5 percent --without any actual increase in the rates --just the effect of inflation. With all our complaining about rise in prices, this increased cost of government was the sharpest-hitting increase of any item in the family budget. The bite of the personal income tax gets sharper as inflation pushes us up into higher surtax brackets. Government doesn't have to raise the rates to profit by inflation. The progressive tax is based on the number of dollars earned, not their actual value. With political courage instead of demagoguery, we could have a reform of business taxes that would encourage a wider ownership in American industry by the workers in those industries.
"Finally, real tax reform would set a limit on the percentage of the total earnings of the people that government could take without expressed consent of the people.
"In the months ahead, I will say more on each of these major areas of national policy. But right now, let me tell you what I think the massive transfer of federal program to the states would mean.
"It would be a giant step toward solving the problems of inflation that are sapping the strength of our economy and cheating American wage-earners and pensioners. There is no mystery about inflation. It is caused by spending money not yet earned. Without the enormous pressure of a $60 or $80 billion deficit, the Federal Reserve System would have no mandate to pump many dollars into the economy -- which is ultimately the only cause of inflation. Inflation, in turn, is the cause of recession. The federal deficit is the chief debaucher of our dollar.
"Some of the tax cuts I propose would be balanced by increases in taxes at the state or the local level; but still the savings would be considerable. One thing, when we begin making payments on the national debt, we make further reductions in the tax burden. Right now, we are being billed a billion dollars every ten days just to pay interest on the debt. Reducing that debt will progressively reduce the level of taxation. Senator Hubert Humphrey once was excusing government spending and rationalized what had taken place by saying, 'Well, you have to realize that a billion here and a billion there -- it adds up.' Well, it can work the other way around.
"With the spending reduction I propose, the federal government will no longer be crowding capital markets to finance its deficits. That will make available billions of dollars in new capital for private investment, housing starts, and job creation --and the interest rates for all of us will come down.
"The transfer I propose does not mean that the specific programs in question are not worthwhile. Many are, though in my opinion many others are not. But the point is that all these programs are losing their effectiveness because of the federal government's preemption of the levels of government that are closer to the problems, coupled with Washington's ability to complicate everything it touches.
"The decision as to whether the programs are worthwhile and whether to continue them or cancel them will be placed where it rightfully belongs: with the people in each one of our states.
"It is theoretically possible that local governments will simply duplicate some of the existing programs as they are turned over to them; and if that is what the people in that particular state want, that is exactly what should happen. The federal bureaucrats who run them now will be available --there certainly won't be any work for them in Washington.
"Some of the more worthwhile programs will be retained essentially as they are, others will be modified, many will be dropped. But all the surviving programs will be run at a much lower cost than is presently the case.
"The present system is geared to maximize expenditure and minimize responsibility. There is no better way to promote the lavish outlay of tax money than to transfer programs and funding authority away from state and.local governments to the federal level, ensuring that recipients of aid will have every reason to spend and none to conserve. They can get 9-9-9. political credit for spending freely, but they don't have to take the heat for imposing the taxes. The French economist Bastiat, 100 years ago, said, 'Public funds seemingly belong to no one and the temptation to bestow them on someone is irresistable.'
"So long as the system continues to function on this basis, we are going to see expenditures at every level of government soar out of sight. The object is to reverse this: to tie spending and taxing functions together wherever feasible, so that those who have the pleasure of giving the money away will also have the pain of raising them. At the same time, we can sort out which functions of government are best performed at each level. And that process, I hope, would be going on between state and its own local governments at the same time.
"The transfer of spending authority to Washington blurs the difference between wasteful states and prudent ones and this, too, destroys incentives toward economy. If a state spends itself into bankruptcy on welfare, under the present system it is bailed out when Washington picks up the tab. Indeed, many federal programs are geared toward encouraging this kind of behavior. The way to more is to spend more.
"By the same token, efforts at state economy are punished under the present system. A state that keeps s fiscal house in order and, for example, prevents the welfare problem from getting out of hand will find it derives no benefits from its action. It will discover, as we did in California, that efforts to impose some common sense in welfare will run afoul of federal bureaucrats and guidelines and its citizens will be called upon to pay in federal taxes and inflation for other states that don't curb their spending.
"Another benefit of localizing these programs is that. state and local governments are more accessible to the local citizen, and in most cases prevented by statute from going in debt. When tax increases are proposed in state assemblies and city councils, the average citizen is better able to resist and to make his influence felt. This, plus the ban on local deficits, tends to put an effective lid on spending.
"Federal financing is the spender's method of getting around these restraints. Taxes are imposed at a level where the government is far away and inaccessible to the average citizen. The connection between big spending and high taxes is hidden, and the ability to run up deficits and print more money makes the efforts to control the problem through the taxation almost meaningless.
"The proposals I have outlined will bring howls of pain from those who are benefiting from the present system, and from many more who think they are. We must turn a deaf ear to the screams of the outraged if this nation and this way of life are to survive. The simple fact is, the producing class of this nation is being drained of its substance by the non-producers --the taxpayers are being victimized by the tax consumers. And, already in the last few weeks, we have discovered we are outnumbered. There are 71 1/2 million Americans working and earning, producing in the private sector. They are the total source of all government revenue --all the money must come from those 71 1/2 million people. There are 80 1/2 million people today receiving checks at one time or another from government. We are outnumbered by nine million.
"Many have based their political lives on appealing to this non-producing bloc --always at the further distress of the body of people that make this great system work. Well, the ship can't stay afloat unless we man the pumps.
"Of course, there will be those in government and elsewhere whose life style depends on consuming other people's earnings, and they'll fight to the last limousine and carpeted anteroom.
"But if we ignore the taxers and the centralizers and do the things we know we can do, we'll do more than survive: we will inaugurate a new era of American diversity.
"Now, you take, for example, education. The United States built the greatest system of public schools the world has ever known --not at the federal level, or even at the state level, but at the level of the local school district. Until a few years ago, the people had direct control over their schools --how much to spend, what kind of courses to offer, whom to hire. Is it an accident that, as local control gave way to funding and control by the federal and state governments, reading and other test scores in the college entrance exams have gone down -- nosediving, actually --in the last 10 years, and this year hitting an all-time low?
"Dr. James Coleman, of Johns Hopkins University, in what is probably the most thorough study of the public schools ever made, found that over a 20-year period, enrollment in the public schools has gone up 88 percent. The cost has risen in constant dollars 350 percent. The number of school employees has increased 203 percent. The average cost of educating a student has risen in the last decade 211 percent, while the cost of living has only gone up 57 percent. The truth is, a good education depends far more on local control than on the amount of money spent.
There is no question but that under local agencies certain abuses did take place and certainly they needed to be cured -- sometimes by federal interference. This was certainly true of the racial segregation in the South. But now that according to some estimates the South is the most integrated area of the country now that there is an ongoing enforcement structure in the Department of Justice --is there any further reason to deny local control and funding of our schools?
"Or take welfare. For years the fashionable voices have been calling for a federal takeover of welfare. Well, they did take over the old-age portions --and in the first 18 months, they paid out over a billion dollars by mistake! If there is one area of social policy that should be at the most local level of government possible, it is welfare. It should not be nationalized --it should be localized. If Joe Doaks is using his welfare money to go down to the pool hall and drink beer and gamble, and the people on his block are paying for it, as they are, but if they also have a say in running the program, Joe is apt to undergo a change in his life style.
"This is an example of why our task force in California found that the smaller and more local governments become, the less they cost. The more you localize government, the less you will see a situation like the one in Massachusetts, where a mother of six is receiving from government, in cash and services, the equivalent of a $20,000-a-year income. The average family income in Massachusetts is just one-half of that.
"The truth is that people all over America have been thinking about all of these problems for years. This country is bursting with ideas and creativity, but a government run by bureaucrats in Washington has no way to respond. If we send the power back to the states and localities, we'll find out how to improve education, because some districts are going to succeed with some ideas, others are going to fail with ideas, and the word will spread between them like wildfire. The more we let the people decide, the more we'll find out about what policies work and what policies don't work. Successful programs and good local governments will attract bright people like magnets, because the genius of our federalism --that we have grown so far toward destroying in recent decades --is that people can vote with their feet. If local or state governments get tyrannical and costly, the people will move. By the same token, if one of them shows up doing something right, people will pack up and move toward that. If the federal government is the villian, there is no escape.
"I am calling also for an end to giantism, for a return to the human scale the-scale that human beings can understand and cope with; the scale of the local fraternal lodge, the church congregation, the block club, the farm bureau. It is the locally-owned factory, the small businessman who personally deals with his customers and stands behind his product, the farm and consumer cooperative, the town or neighborhood bank that invests in the community, the union local.
"In government, the human scale is the town council, the board of selectmen, and the precinct captain.
"It is this activity on a small, human scale that creates the fabric of conm1unity, a framework for the creation of abundance of liberty. The human scale nurtures standards of right behavior, a prevailing ethic of what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable.
"Three-and-a-half centuries ago, people from across the sea began to cross to this great land, searching for freedom and a sense of community they were losing at home. The trickle became a flood, and we spread across a vast, virtually unpeopled continent and caused it to blossom with homesteads, villages, cities, great transportation systems, all the emblems of prosperity and success. And we did every bit of that without an urban renewal program or an area redevelopment plan. We became the most productive people in the history of the world.
"Two hundred years ago, when this process was just beginning, we rebelled when, in our eyes, a mother country turned into a foreign power. We rebelled not to overturn but to preserve what we had, and to keep alive the chance for doing more. We established a republic, because the meaning of a republic is that real leadership comes not from the rulers but from the people; that more happens in a state where people are the sculptors and not the clay.
We are losing that chance today, and we know we are losing it. Two hundred years ago it was London that turned into a foreign power. Today, it is sad to say, it is Washington, D.C. The coils woven in that city are entrapping us all, and, as with the Gordian knot, we cannot untie it. We have to cut it with one blow of the sword.
"In one reference book, cutting the Gordian knot is defined as 'solving a perplexing problem by a single bold action'. The Gordian knot of antiguity was in Phrygia, and it was Alexander the Great who cut it, thereby, according to the legend, assuring the conquest of Persia.
"Today, the Gordian knot is in Washington, and the stakes are even higher. But this is a republic, and we don't have a king with a sword, only we the people, and our sword has been fashioned into a ballot box. What applies to the role of government applies equally to the means of changing that role: leadership is necessary, but even more necessary is popular choice. The anonymous sage who defined leadership must have lived in a republic, for he said, 'He is not the best statesman who is the greatest doer, but he who sets others doing with the greatest success.'"
Citizens for Reagan
For President
NOVEMBER 20, 1975
Thank you for coming.
I have called this press conference to announce that I am a candidate for the Presidency and to ask for the support of all Americans who share my belief that our nation needs to embark on a new, constructive course.
I believe my candidacy will be healthy for the nation and my party.
I am running because I have grown increasingly concerned about the course of events in the united States and in the world.
In just a few years, three vital measures of economic decay--inflation, unemployment, and interest rates--have more than doubled, at times reaching 10 percent and even more.
Government at all levels now absorbs more than 44 percent of our personal income. It has become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome and less effective.
Our access to cheap and abundant energy has been interrupted, and our dependence on foreign sources is growing.
A decade ago we had military superiority. Today we are in danger of being surpassed by a nation that has never made any effort to hide its hostility to everything we stand for.
Through detente we have sought peace with our adversaries. We should continue to do so but must make it plain that we expect a soonger indication that they also seek a lasting peace with us.
In my opinion, the root of these problems lies right here--in Washington, D.C. Our nation's capital has become the seat of a "buddy" system that functions for its own benefit--increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker who supports it with his taxes.
Today it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces that have brought us our problems--the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists, big business and big labor.
If America is to survive and go forward, this must change. It will only change when the American people vote for a leadership that listens to them, relies on them and seeks to return government to them. We need a government that is confident not of what it can do, but of what the people can do.
For eight years in California, we labored to make government responsive. We worked against high odds--an opposition legislature for most of those years and an obstructive Washington bureaucracy for all of them. We did not always succeed. Nevertheless, we found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the Federal level.
In the coming months I will take this message to the American people. I will talk in detail about responsible, responsive government. I will tell the people it is they who should decide how much government they want.
I don't believe for one moment that four more years of business-as-usual in Washington is the answer to our problems, and I don't think the American people believe it either.
We, as a people, aren't happy if we are not moving forward. A nation that is growing and thriving is one which will solve its problems. We must offer progress instead of stagnation; the truth instead of promises; hope and faith instead of defeatism and despair. Then, I am sure, the people will make those decisions which will restore confidence in our way of life and release that energy that is the American spirit.
Editorial Advisory: Ronald Reagan Appearance Schedule, Nov. 20-21
Source: https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0204/1512162.pdf#page=3
WASHINGTON, D.C.--The following tentative schedule of appearances for former California Governor Ronald Reagan has been released by the Citizens for Reagan Committee. This schedule will be followed, assuming Gov. Reagan announces that he will become a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination.
THURSDAY, NOV. 20:
Washington, D.C. (EST)
9:30 a.m. News Conference (30 min.), Grand Ballroom, National Press Club (corner 14th & F Streets, N.W.). Announcement on Candidacy Decision.
10:30 a.m. Depart National Press Building
11:00 a.m. Depart National Airport; charter flight
1:10 p.m. Arrive Miami International Airport
1:40 p.m. Speech (20 min.), Main Ballroom, Ramada Inn (3941 West 22nd Street)
2:15 p.m. News Conference (20 min.) in partitioned, designated area of North-South Room, Ramada Inn. Filing facilities available.
3:30 p.m. Depart Ramada Inn for airport
3:50 p.m. Depart Miami International Airport
6:40 p.m. Arrive Manchester Airport, Main Terminal
8:25 p.m. Speech with Q&A Session (approx. 1 hr.) before "Town Meeting," Nain Ballroom, Sheraton Wayfarer Hotel, Manchester. Filing facilities· available.
OVERNIGHT: Sheraton Wayfarer Hotel, Manchester
FRIDAY 1 NOV. 21:
8:00 a.m. News Conference (20 min.), Main Ballroom, Sheraton Wayfarer Hotel
8:25 a.m. Depart Wayfarer Hotel for airport
8:50 a.m. Depart Manchester airport
Charlotte, North Carolina (EST)
10:50 a.m. Arrive Charlotte Airport
11:05 a.m. Speech (15 min.) on arrival at Cannon Aviation Hanger
1:25 a.m. News Conference (20 min.) in National Guard Auditorium, Charlotte airport. Filing facilities available.
12:25 p.m. Depart Charlotte airport
Chicago, Illinois (CST)
1:10 p.m. Arrive O'Hare Airport, Butler Aviation Terminal
1:15 p.m. Ne\olS Conference (20 min.), Butler Aviation Terminal
1:45 p.m. Depart O'Hare Airport
4:00 p.m. Arrive Hollywood-Burbank Airport
4:05 p.m. "Homecoming Celebration" with speech (15 min.) to Rally, just outside Hanger #24
4:30 p.m. News Conference (30 min.) inside Hanger #24. Filing facilities available.
6:00 p.m. Depart Hollywood-Burbank Airport for Beverly Hilton Hotel
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESS:
Governor Reagan will vary the attached speech slightly at each stop to meet the local situation.
SPEECH BY RONALD REAGAN, NOV. 20-21, 1975
Source: https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0204/1512162.pdf#page=8
There's a passage in the Bible that says, "If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"
Well, just to make sure no one mistook the sound of the trumpet, I took it to Washington this morning to announce my candidacy for the Presidency.
I chose Washington because it is such an intimate part of our troubles: inflation, recession, unemployment, bureaucracy and centralized power.
There are times in a nation's history when the people become aware that only a new and constructive course can solve the problems besetting them. America is in such a time now.
Ironically, it was in another troubled time more than four decades ago that we set in motion some of the forces which have brought us to this present time of decision.
Back in the Depression years there were those who promised to overcome hard times. Franklin Delano Roosevelt embarked on a course that made bold use of government to ease the pain of those times. Although some of his measures seemed to work, he was soon moved to sound a warning. He said, " ...we have built new instruments of public power in the hands of the people's government...but in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of our people."
Unfortunately, that warning went unheeded. Today, there is an economic autocracy, born of government's growing interference in our lives. Yet Washington, for all its power, seems powerless to solve problems any more.
I am running because I have grown increasingly concerned about the course of events in the United States and in the world.
In just a few years, three vital measures of economic decay--inflation, unemployment, and interest rates--have more than doubled, at times reaching 10 percent and even more.
Government at all levels now absorbs more than 44 percent of our personal income. It has become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome and less effective.
Our access to cheap and abundant energy has been interrupted, and our dependence on foreign sources is growing.
A decade ago we had military superiority. Today we are in danger of being surpassed by a nation that has never made any effort to hide its hostility to everything we stand for.
Through detente we have sought peace with our adversaries. We should continue to do so but must make it plain that we expect a stronger indication that they also seek a lasting peace with us.
In my opinion, the root of these problems lies right here--in Washington, D.C. Our nation's capital has become the seat of a "buddy" system that functions for its own benefit--increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker who supports it with his taxes.
Today it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces that have brought us our problems--the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists, big business and big labor.
If America is to survive and go forward, this must change. It will only change when the American people vote for a leadership that listens to them, relies on them, and seeks to return government to them. We need a government that is confident not of what it can do, but of what the people can do.
For eight years in California, we labored to make government responsive. We worked against high odds-an opposition legislature for most of those years and an obstructive Washington bureaucracy for all of them. We did not always succeed. Nevertheless, we found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the Federal level.
I am convinced that under the layer of self-doubt that seems to have settled like a fog on our country, the true, strong spirit of the American people still glows, ready to be reignited so that we can once again have a sense of mission; a pride in our capacity to perform great deeds.
Washington seems to have lost track of the American Dream. But you and millions more like you across this land have not. You are determined to be free and independent, to solve your own problems and to help your neighbors solve theirs. Over the last ten months, visiting nearly every corner of America and meeting many thousands of people, I have seen this determination in their faces and I have heard it in their voices.
I have become a candidate because I believe strongly in this American spirit to move forward; to try the untried; to dream the new dream--knowing that our energy and our ingenuity can turn them into realities.
In the coming months I will take this message to the American people. I will talk in detail about responsible, responsive government. I will tell the people it is they who should decide how much government they want.
I don't believe for one moment that four more years of business-as-usual in Washington is the answer to our problems, and I don't think the American people believe it either.
I am here to tell you that I shall be running in your primary. Not just running, but putting all my energy into it. I cannot reach the goal alone. I need your help. Together, we can reach it.
We, as a people, aren't happy if we are not moving forward. A nation that is growing and thriving is one which will solve its problems. As we work toward our goal, we must offer progress instead of stagnation; the truth instead of promises; hope and faith instead of defeatism and despair. Then I am sure the people will make those decisions which will restore confidence in our life and release that energy that is the American spirit.
Ronald Reagan - March 31, 1976
Source: https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/exhibits/campaign/020400462-001.pdf
Ronald Reagan - Republican National Convention Speech
August 19, 1976
Source: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/republican-national-convention-speech-1976
Mr. President, Mrs. Ford, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Vice President-to-be, the distinguished guests here, you ladies and gentlemen. I was going to say fellow Republicans here but those who are watching from a distance (including) all those millions of Democrats and independents who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally and which I believe we can give them. Mr. President, before you arrive tonight, these wonderful people, here, when we came in, gave Nancy and myself a welcome. That, plus this, plus your kindness and generosity in honoring us by bringing us down here will give us a memory that will live in our hearts forever.
Watching on television these last few nights Ive seen also the warmth with which you greeted Nancy and you also filled my heart with joy when you did that. May I say some words. There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and is doesnt very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than is has ever been before, I believe the Republican party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastel shades. We have just heard a call to arms, based on that platform.
And a call to us to really be successful in communicating and reveal to the American people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party which is nothing but a revamp and a reissue and a rerunning of a late, late show of the thing that we have been hearing from them for the last 40 years.
If I could just take a moment, I had an assignment the other day. Someone asked me to write a letter for a time capsule that is going to opened in Los Angeles a hundred years from now, on our Tricentennial.
It sounded like an easy assignment. They suggested I write about the problems and issues of the day. And I set out to do so, riding down the coast in an automobile, looking at the blue Pacific out on one side and the Santa Ynez Mountains on the other, and I couldnt help but wonder if it was going to be that beautiful a hundred years from now as it was on that summer day.
And then as I tried to write-let your own minds turn to that task. You're going to write for people a hundred years from now who know all about us, we know nothing about them. We dont know what kind of world theyll be living in. And suddenly I thought to myself, If I write of the problems, theyll be the domestic problems of which the President spoke here tonight; the challenges confronting us, the erosion of freedom taken place under Democratic rule in this country, the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy. These are the challenges that we must meet and then again there is that challenge of which he spoke that we live in a world in which the great powers have aimed and poised at each other horrible missiles of destruction, nuclear weapons that can in a matter of minutes arrive at each others country and destroy virtually the civilized world we live in.
And suddenly it dawned on me; those who would read this letter a hundred years from now will know whether those missiles were fired. They will know whether we met our challenge.
Whether they will have the freedom that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here. Will they look back with appreciation and say, Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom? Who kept us now a hundred years later free? Who kept our world from nuclear destruction?
And if we fail they probably wont get to read the letter at all because it spoke of individual freedom and they wont be allowed to talk of that or read of it.
This is our challenge and this is why were here in this hall tonight. Better than weve ever done before, weve got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than weve ever been but we carry the message theyre waiting for. We must go forth from here united, determined and what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory. Mr. President.
Ronald Reagan - 4th Annual CPAC Convention
February 6, 1977
The New Republican Party
Source: https://patriotpost.us/pages/430-ronald-reagan-the-new-republican-party
I’m happy to be back with you in this annual event after missing last year’s meeting. I had some business in New Hampshire that wouldn’t wait.
Three weeks ago here in our nation’s capital I told a group of conservative scholars that we are currently in the midst of a re-ordering of the political realities that have shaped our time. We know today that the principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority.
Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves "conservative" are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well.
A Harris poll released September 7, l975 showed 18 percent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 percent as conservative, with 41 percent as middle of the road; a few months later, on January 5, 1976, by a 43-19 plurality, those polled by Harris said they would "prefer to see the country move in a more conservative direction than a liberal one."
Last October 24th, the Gallup organization released the result of a poll taken right in the midst of the presidential campaign.
Respondents were asked to state where they would place themselves on a scale ranging from "right-of-center" (which was defined as "conservative") to left-of-center (which was defined as "liberal").
* Thirty-seven percent viewed themselves as left-of-center or liberal * Twelve percent placed themselves in the middle * Fifty-one percent said they were right-of-center, that is, conservative.
What I find interesting about this particular poll is that it offered those polled a range of choices on a left-right continuum. This seems to me to be a more realistic approach than dividing the world into strict left and rights. Most of us, I guess, like to think of ourselves as avoiding both extremes, and the fact that a majority of Americans chose one or the other position on the right end of the spectrum is really impressive.
Those polls confirm that most Americans are basically conservative in their outlook. But once we have said this, we conservatives have not solved our problems, we have merely stated them clearly. Yes, conservatism can and does mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives.
You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call "social" conservatism and "economic" conservatism. The so-called social issues -- law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems -- are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues -- inflation, deficit spending and big government -- are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.
Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism -- or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.
In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called "social" issues and those interested in "economic" issues. In short, isn't it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?
I believe the answer is: Yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto [unacknowledged], conservative majority. We went a long way toward doing it in California. We can do it in America. This is not a dream, a wistful hope. It is and has been a reality. I have seen the conservative future and it works.
Let me say again what I said to our conservative friends from the academic world: What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.
This will mean compromise. But not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics.
I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for "ideological purity." Whatever ideology may mean -- and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it -- it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country "ideology" is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don't happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.
I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.
When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.
When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing -- he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.
When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education -- he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school.
When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.
Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way -- this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.
The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations -- found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.
One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: "Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for." That is not "ideological purity." It is simply what built this country and kept it great.
Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right -- those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.
Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.
Once we have established this, the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights?
I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends -- perhaps including some of you here tonight -- who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.
I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party.
And let me say so there can be no mistakes as to what I mean: The New Republican Party I envision will not be, and cannot, be one limited to the country club-big business image that, for reasons both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. If we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not by simply "making room" for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party. The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.
The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: "Look, we offer principles that black Americans can, and do, support." We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs -- and we believe that the long-range interest of black Americans lies in looking at what each major party has to offer, and then deciding on the merits. The Democratic Party takes the black vote for granted. Well, it’s time black America and the New Republican Party move toward each other and create a situation in which no black vote can be taken for granted.
The New Republican Party I envision is one that will energetically seek out the best candidates for every elective office, candidates who not only agree with, but understand, and are willing to fight for a sound, honest economy, for the interests of American families and neighborhoods and communities and a strong national defense. And these candidates must be able to communicate those principles to the American people in language they understand. Inflation isn’t a textbook problem. Unemployment isn’t a textbook problem. They should be discussed in human terms.
Our candidates must be willing to communicate with every level of society, because the principles we espouse are universal and cut across traditional lines. In every Congressional district there should be a search made for young men and women who share these principles and they should be brought into positions of leadership in the local Republican Party groups. We can find attractive, articulate candidates if we look, and when we find them, we will begin to change the sorry state of affairs that has led to a Democratic-controlled Congress for more than 40 years. I need not remind you that you can have the soundest principles in the world, but if you don't have candidates who can communicate those principles, candidates who are articulate as well as principled, you are going to lose election after election. I refuse to believe that the good Lord divided this world into Republicans who defend basic values and Democrats who win elections. We have to find tough, bright young men and women who are sick and tired of cliches and the pomposity and the mind-numbing economic idiocy of the liberals in Washington.
It is at this point, however, that we come across a question that is really the essential one: What will be the basis of this New Republican Party? To what set of values and principles can our candidates appeal? Where can Americans who want to know where we stand look for guidance?
Fortunately, we have an answer to that question. That answer was provided last summer by the men and women of the Republican Party -- not just the leadership, but the ones who have built the party on local levels all across the country.
The answer was provided in the 1976 platform of the Republican Party.
This was not a document handed down from on high. It was hammered out in free and open debate among all those who care about our party and the principles it stands for.
The Republican platform is unique. Unlike any other party platform I have ever seen, it answers not only programmatic questions for the immediate future of the party but also provides a clear outline of the underlying principles upon which those programs are based.
The New Republican Party can and should use the Republican platform of 1976 as the major source from which a Declaration of Principles can be created and offered to the American people.
Tonight I want to offer to you my own version of what such a declaration might look like. I make no claim to originality. This declaration I propose is relatively short, taken, for most part, word for word from the Republican platform. It concerns itself with basic principles, not with specific solutions.
We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following propositions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people.
We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. Government must step in when one’s liberties impinge on one’s neighbor’s. Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves.
Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. Those concerns of a national character -- such as air and water pollution that do not respect state boundaries, or the national transportation system, or efforts to safeguard your civil liberties -- must, of course, be handled on the national level.
As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible.
We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.
Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation.
Families -- not government programs -- are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved.
Thus it is imperative that our government’s programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeopardize the family. We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. The New Republican Party must be committed to working always in the interest of the American family.
Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individuals. Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?
Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.
Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimination of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people as the American market system.
The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.
The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom. We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none.
In his inaugural speech President Carter said that he saw the world "dominated by a new spirit." He said, and I quote: "The passion for freedom is on the rise."
Well, I don’t know how he knows this, but if it is true, then it is the most unrequited passion in human history. The world is being dominated by a new spirit, all right, but it isn’t the spirit of freedom.
It isn’t very often you see a familiar object that shocks and frightens you. But the other day I came across a map of the world created by Freedom House, an organization monitoring the state of freedom in the world for the past 25 years. It is an ordinary map, with one exception: it shows the world’s nations in white for free, shaded for partly free and black for not free.
Almost all of the great Eurasian land mass is completely colored black, from the western border of East Germany, through middle and eastern Europe, through the awesome spaces of the Soviet Union, on to the Bering Strait in the north, down past the immensity of China, still further down to Vietnam and the South China Sea -- in all that huge, sprawling, inconceivably immense area not a single political or personal or religious freedom exists. The entire continent of Africa, from the Mediterranean to the Cape of Good Hope, from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, all that vastness is almost totally unfree. In the tiny nation of Tanzania alone, according to a report in the New York Times, there are 3,000 people in detention for political crimes -- that is more than the total being held in South Africa! The Mideast has only one free state: Israel. If a visitor from another planet were to approach earth, and if this planet showed free nations in light and unfree nations in darkness, the pitifully small beacons of light would make him wonder what was hidden in that terrifying, enormous blackness.
We know what is hidden: Gulag. Torture. Families -- and human beings -- broken apart. No free press, no freedom of religion. The ancient forms of tyranny revived and made even more hideous and strong through what Winston Churchill once called "a perverted science." Men rotting for years in solitary confinement because they have different political and economic beliefs, solitary confinement that drives the fortunate ones insane and makes the survivors wish for death.
Only now and then do we in the West hear a voice from out of that darkness. Then there is silence -- the silence of human slavery. There is no more terrifying sound in human experience, with one possible exception. Look at that map again. The very heart of the darkness is the Soviet Union and from that heart comes a different sound. It is the whirring sound of machinery and the whisper of the computer technology we ourselves have sold them. It is the sound of building, building of the strongest military machine ever devised by man. Our military strategy is designed to hopefully prevent a war. Theirs is designed to win one. A group of eminent scientists, scholars and intelligence experts offer a survey showing that the Soviet Union is driving for military superiority and are derided as hysterically making, quote, "a worst case," unquote, concerning Soviet intentions and capabilities.
But is it not precisely the duty of the national government to be prepared for the worst case? Two Senators, after studying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have reported to the Armed Forces Committee that Soviet forces in Eastern Europe have the capability to launch, with little warning, a "potentially devastating" attack in Central Europe from what is termed a "standing alert."
Reading their report, one can almost see the enormous weight of the parts of the earth that are under tyranny shifting in an irresistible tilt toward that tiny portion of land in freedom’s light. Even now in Western Europe we have Communists in the government of Italy, France appeasing terrorists, and England -- for centuries the model or the sword of freedom in Western Europe -- weak, dispirited, turning inward.
A "worst case"? How could you make a good case out of the facts as they are known? The Soviet Union, poised on the edge of free Europe, capable of striking from a standing start, has modern tanks in far greater numbers than the outmoded vehicles of NATO. We have taken comfort from NATO’s superiority in the air, but now the Soviet Union has made a dramatic swing away from its historic defensive air posture to one capable of supporting offensive action. NATO’s southern flank is described in the Senate report with a single word: shambles.
The report is simply reality as it was, with different names and faces, in Europe in the late 1930s when so many refused to believe and thought if we don’t look the threat will go away.
We don’t want hysteria. We don’t want distortion of Soviet power. We want truth. And above all we want peace. And to have [recognition] that the United States has to immediately re-examine its entire view of the world and develop a strategy of freedom. We cannot be the second-best super-power for the simple reason that he who is second is last. In this deadly game, there are no silver medals for second.
President Carter, as a candidate, said he would cut five to seven billion dollars from the defense budget. We must let him know that while we agree, there must be no fat in our armed forces. Those armed forces must be capable of coping with the new reality presented to us by the Russians, and cutting seven billion dollars out of our defense budget is not the way to accomplish this. Some years ago, a young President said, we will make any sacrifice, bear any burden, and we will, to preserve our freedom.
Our relationship with mainland China is clouded. The so-called "Gang of Four" are up one day and down the next and we are seeing the pitfalls of making deals with charismatic personalities and living legends. The charisma fades as the living legends die, and those who take their place are interested not in our best wishes but in power. The keyword for China today is turmoil. We should watch and observe and analyze as closely and rationally as we can.
But in our relationships with the mainland of China we should always remember that the conditions and possibilities for and the realities of freedom exist to an infinitely greater degree with our Chinese friends in Taiwan. We can never go wrong if we do what is morally right, and the moral way -- the honorable way -- is to keep our commitment, our solemn promise to the people of Taiwan. Our liberal friends have made much of the lack of freedom in some Latin American countries. Senator Edward Kennedy and his colleagues here in Washington let no opportunity pass to let us know about horrors in Chile.
Well, I think when the United States of America is considering a deal with a country that hasn’t had an election in almost eight years, where the press is under the thumb of a dictatorship, where ordinary citizens are abducted in the night by secret police, where military domination of the country is known to be harsh on dissenters and when these things are documented, we should reject overtures from those who rule such a country.
But the country I’m describing is not Chile -- it is Panama.
We are negotiating with a dictatorship that comes within the portion of that map colored black for no freedom. No civil rights. One-man rule. No free press.
Candidate Carter said he would never relinquish "actual control" of the Panama Canal. President Carter is negotiating with a dictatorship whose record on civil and human rights is as I have just described and the negotiations concern the rights guaranteed to us by treaty which we will give up under a threat of violence. In only a few weeks we will mark the second anniversary of the death of freedom for the Vietnamese. An estimated 300,000 of them are being "re-educated" in concentration camps to forget about freedom.
There is only one major question on the agenda of national priorities and that is the state of our national security. I refer, of course, to the state of our armed forces -- but also to our state of mind, to the way we perceive the world. We cannot maintain the strength we need to survive, no matter how many missiles we have, no matter how many tanks we build, unless we are willing to reverse:
* The trend of deteriorating faith in and continuing abuse of our national intelligence agencies. Let’s stop the sniping and the propaganda and the historical revisionism and let the CIA and the other intelligence agencies do their job!
* Let us reverse the trend of public indifference to problems of national security. In every congressional district citizens should join together, enlist and educate neighbors and make certain that congressmen know we care. The front pages of major newspapers on the East Coast recently headlined and told in great detail of a takeover, the takeover of a magazine published in New York -- not a nation losing its freedom. You would think, from the attention it received in the media, that it was a matter of blazing national interest whether the magazine lived or died. The tendency of much of the media to ignore the state of our national security is too well documented for me to go on.
My friends, the time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created.
And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.
We’ve succeeded better than we know. Little more than a decade ago more than two-thirds of Americans believed the federal government could solve all our problems, and do so without restricting our freedom or bankrupting the nation.
We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin.
Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it.
The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when?
Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.
Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.
Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.
Ronald Reagan - 5th Annual CPAC Conference
March 17, 1978
America's Purpose in the World
Source: https://patriotpost.us/pages/431-ronald-reagan-americas-purpose-in-the-world
As a part-time journalist faced with producing a syndicated daily radio broadcast and twice-a-week newspaper column, I find being on the mailing lists of an almost endless array of organizations most helpful. Now some of the flood of materials crosses my desk very swiftly. But not all of it. One thick handout I got late last year was especially fascinating, not only because of content but just because it was mailed to me at all.
It was from the White House Press Office. Under the title "Domestic and Foreign Policy Accomplishments" it told me, in 21 single-spaced pages, of the wonders of the Carter administration's first year.
Beginning with the modest statement that - quote - "The president tackled directly and comprehensively major domestic problems that had been almost completely ignored in previous years." - unquote - it then recited an impressive list of major accomplishments. True, the White House hadn't claimed to find a way to control the weather or to eliminate crab grass on the White House lawn, but it did think it had solved -- or nearly solved -- our energy problems, Social Security's $17-trillion deficit, the size of a big government (we added 52,000 new employees in the first 10 months of 1977), the welfare mess and a host of other problems that have been center stage in American life for quite some time.
Tonight, perhaps we should discuss some of those White House claims and see if they have stood the test of even the three months that have passed since they were made. I know that's a little cruel -- like checking up on someone's New Year's resolutions. After all, the administration has scarcely gotten a single domestic program worth noting through Congress. I'll tell you what. Let us concentrate on the administration's handling of foreign affairs, national security and its sense of priorities.
On priorities, there is the matter of issuing the former budget director a diplomatic passport; the taking of depositions from bartenders and issuing a 33-page denial that the president's chief aide expectorated at or in the direction of a young woman. It boggles the mind to think what they would have done if he'd spit on the sidewalk. Then there was the solemn oath to appoint and retain a U.S. attorney who goes investigating suspected wrongdoing on the part of Congressmen who belong to the president's own party.
Moving on to the Carter administration's record in foreign affairs -- let me say a few words about Panama and our canal there. And I do mean a few words.
With yesterday's vote on the so-called Neutrality Treaty, you might say that round one is over. Now, there has been confusion in some news reports which called this the "first treaty," saying that the Senate would next take up the "second treaty." Actually, the Senate decided to reverse the procedure. The Neutrality Treaty is the second treaty. They just voted on it first. Next they will deal with the basic treaty, the one called the Panama Canal Treaty. It is the basic treaty because it is the one which would relinquish our rights and would actually eliminate the canal zone as soon as it goes into effect -- if it does.
I hope the Senate will devote as much detailed attention to this basic treaty as it did to the Neutrality Treaty. Meanwhile, I can't get a question out of my head. It is this: Even though the Neutrality Treaty supposedly guarantees our right to go back in to defend the Canal after 1999, if there is no canal zone, wouldn't any such move on out part be branded as interference in the internal affairs of Panama?
On the other hand, if the basic treaty is not ratified, the Neutrality Treaty itself won't have much meaning because our rights and our presence in the canal zone would continue. And, when all is said and done, it is always easier to defend something you have than to get back something you gave away.
My fundamental concern has always been primarily with this basic treaty which would eliminate our rights there. I think there are alternatives to it which would be better for all concerned.
You are all activists, and I know you will make your views known to your elected representatives on this next treaty debate.
My purpose tonight, however, is not to repeat my views on this question. Panama is an important issue. The final outcome is not yet certain, and certainly the matter won't end with the final vote in the Senate. In a way, that will only begin it.
But, whatever the outcome on Capitol Hill, the smug assumptions of many of the treaties' proponents have been successfully and vigorously challenged.
Few Americans accept the belief of some of those now in positions of importance in guiding our foreign policy that America's purpose in the world is to appease the mighty out of a sense of fear or to appease the weak out of a sense of guilt.
But a question remains. Is the faulty thinking that has led us to these particular treaties an isolated particle, or is it part of a much larger whole?
In reviewing the foreign policy of this administration, one can only come to the conclusion that the mistaken assumptions that led to its course on the Panama Canal treaties are being duplicated around the world.
Its policy is rooted in well-meaning intentions, but it shows a woeful uncertainty as to America's purpose in the world.
The administration means to do good by espousing a human rights doctrine it cannot define, much less implement. In the process, this policy has met with scorn from our enemies and alarm from our friends. That self-graded, 21-page White House report card said, with regard to human rights, "The president has strengthened our human rights policy and we are letting it be known clearly that the United States stands with the victims of repression." Is that why our representatives at the Belgrade Conference remained silent in the face of a final report that contained not one word about Russian violations of the human rights provisions in the Helsinki Agreement?
If the Carter administration "stands with the victims of repression," the people of Cuba, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the mainland of China have yet to hear about it. The fact is, the Carter human rights policy is whatever his appointees who guide it want it to be. In practice, they have ceaselessly scolded authoritarian governments of countries that are friendly and ignored authoritarian and totalitarian countries that are not.
Mr. Carter might find a reading of the historian Charles Beard informative. Nearly 40 years ago, Beard concluded that the defect of a foreign policy based on what he called "the selfish sacrifice required by an absolute morality" was the inability to understand "the limited nature of American powers to relieve, restore and maintain life beyond its own sphere of interest and control - a recognition of the hard fact that the United States ... did not possess the power ... to assure the establishment of democratic and pacific government."
But, by using a combination of heavy-handed moves against allied countries, on the one hand, and making "pre-emptive concessions" toward unfriendly or potentially unfriendly countries on the other, the Carter administration has managed to convey the view that it desperately wants the whole world to have democratic institutions that would be the envy of the most ardent ACLU lawyer, and that wishing will make it so.
That view of the world ranks along with belief in the Tooth Fairy. But confusion of purpose and a false sense of guilt are not the only elements in this administration's foreign policy.
Too often, the president is advised by men and women who are forever trapped in the tragic but still fresh memory of a lost war. And from Vietnam they have drawn all the wrong lessons. When they say "never again," they mean the United States should never again resist Communist aggression.
In saying "never again," implying that the war should have been lost -- that it is all right for the victors to conduct a brutal campaign against their own people, violating even minimal human rights.
That it is alright to ignore these massive violations and alright for us to seek better relations with the governments responsible. That White House document lists as an "accomplishment" the fact that "the administration has started the process of normalizing relations" with the Communist conquerors of South Vietnam. The lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is that never again will Americans be asked to fight and die unless they are permitted to win. We need a foreign policy stripped of platitudes, cant and mere moral earnestness -- an earnestness fatally compromised by the massive crimes of some of the Communist world's newer members.
This pattern of Communist violations of human rights should come as no surprise to us. Over and over again, newly established Marxist regimes have committed them. In the 1920s and '30s it was the Soviet Union, in the late '40s the new Iron Curtain countries, in the '50s and through the Cultural Revolution of the '60s it was Communist China and Cuba, and now it is Vietnam and Cambodia.
The problem with much of the Carter team is that they know too little, not too much, of history. And, they have lost faith in their own country's past and traditions.
Too often, that team has operated under the assumption that the United States must prove and reprove and prove again its goodness to the world. Proving that we are civilized in a world that is often uncivilized -- and unapologetically so -- is hardly necessary.
The themes of a sound foreign policy should be no mystery, nor the result of endless agonizing reappraisals. They are rooted in our past -- in our very beginning as a nation.
The Founding Fathers established a system which meant a radical break from that which preceded it. A written constitution would provide a permanent form of government, limited in scope, but effective in providing both liberty and order. Government was not to be a matter of self-appointed rulers, governing by whim or harsh ideology. It was not to be government by the strongest or for the few. Our principles were revolutionary. We began as a small, weak republic. But we survived. Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless. This constitutional republic, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, prospered and grew strong. To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world -- nothing more and nothing less.
To carry out that purpose, our fundamental aim in foreign policy must be to ensure our own survival and to protect those others who share our values. Under no circumstances should we have any illusions about the intentions of those who are enemies of freedom. Our Communist adversaries have little regard for human rights because they have little interest in human freedom. The ruling elites of those countries wish only one thing: to preserve their privileges and to eliminate the nagging reminder that others have done and are doing better under freedom.
Every American president since World War II has known or quickly learned that the Soviet Union, for example, is not benign in its intentions.
The Soviet Union has no interest in maintaining the status quo. It does not accept our soft definition of "detente." To the Soviet Union, "detente" is an opportunity to expand its sphere of influence around the world.
The Soviet Union has steadily increased its capacity for such expansion. That capability has grown enormously since 1945 and, above all, since 1962 when the Cold War was first declared "over" by the hopeful and naive.
Today, the U.S.S.R. continues its drive to dominate the world in military capability: on land, on water, and in the air. Meanwhile, the Carter administration seems confused and torn, partly believing the realities and partly listening to those who believe that pre-emptive concession by the Soviets. But they don't bargain that way. They understand strength; they exploit weakness and take advantage of inexperience. And, possibly, it was inexperience that led the president to placate the most dovish members of his party by scuttling the B-1 bomber -- one of his bargaining chips -- even before the SALT II negotiations began.
One of the reasons given for cancellation of the B-1 was economy, and even here there was a lack of accuracy. First of all, the price given for the aircraft was what the price will be in 1986 if inflation continues -- which incidentally suggests a lack of resolve in the administration's anti-inflation fight. Second, we were told the B-52 or the F-111 could be modified to do the job the B-1 was supposed to do. Here the cost differential shrinks sizeably when we look at the facts. The modification itself is quite costly, and we can double that cost. It will take two planes to substitute for every B-1 because the B-1 carries twice the payload the others will. It will carry that load twice as fast in a plane only half the size of a B-52, and it is far less vulnerable to the Soviet defense system.
While confusion and conflicting advice seem to tug and pull at the White House, the Soviet Union continues to build up its capability for world domination. It has even gone so far as to put entire factories underground and to disperse much of its industrial capacity -- the most sophisticated civil defense program ever developed. The knowledge that our strategic missiles, if they ever had to be used, would inflict minimal damage on the Soviets, compared to the havoc theirs would produce on our continent, should, in itself, be sufficient to spur the administration to making certain that we be number one in the world in terms of national defense capabilities. So far, though, this does not seem to be a White House priority.
Today, we can see the brunt of the Soviet Union's capabilities at work in the Horn of Africa.
To most Americans, that part of the world seems remote, as Korea and Vietnam seemed remote, along with those other places where the Soviets have sought advantage.
In Ethiopia, formerly a close friend of the United States, the Soviets with their Cuban foreign legion have turned that country into a free-fire zone in order to subdue Ethiopia's two principal enemies, Somalia and the Eritrean rebels.
The Soviet goal is obvious: to secure a permanent foothold for itself on the Red Sea. If the Soviets are successful -- and it looks more and more as if they will be -- then the entire Horn of Africa will be under their influence, if not their control. From there, they can threaten the sea lanes carrying oil to western Europe and the United States, if and when they choose.
More immediately, control of the Horn of Africa would give Moscow the ability to destabilize those governments on the Arabian peninsula which have proven themselves strongly anti-Communist. Among them are some of the world's principal oil exporters.
Moscow can also turn its full attention south if it can ensure its position in the Horn of Africa. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to see that Rhodesia is a tempting target. Cuban leaders now boast that it is.
What are we doing about it? Apparently, our response to the Rhodesian settlement proposed by the moderate black leaders and Prime Minister Ian Smith is not to tell the Soviets -- behind the scenes -- to get lost or risk pressures elsewhere that they won't like. No, our response seems to be best summed up by our ambassador to the United Nations, who is unhappy with the moderate, democratic solution in Rhodesia because he's afraid (he says) it will bring on a massive Soviet arms buildup. What does he think we're having now? He seems to believe that the only Rhodesian plan we can afford to support is one to the liking of the two terrorist guerrilla leaders. But if they have their way, one or the other of them will become the sole power in Rhodesia, fronting of course for the Soviet Union. Unless we want to make the world safe for terrorist guerrillas, the only sensible course is for us to support the moderate solution in Rhodesia and quietly tell Moscow to keep its hands off -- unless, of course, we are too weak to do that. Is that what Mr. Young is trying to tell us? I hope not, for a Marxist Rhodesia would lead to even more tempting targets for Moscow in Africa. Perhaps Djibouti, Sudan, Chad, the old Spanish Sahara (where guerrillas are already in operation).
And one other which will cost us dearly. Whatever we may think of South Africa's internal policies, control of its mineral riches and its strategic position are the Soviet Union's ultimate goal in Africa.
Unless the White House can bring itself to understand these realities, it is not too much to say that in a few years we may be faced with the prospect of a Soviet empire of proteges and dependencies stretching from Addis Ababa to Capetown. Those who now reject that possibility out of hand -- and they seem to have the ear of the man in the Oval Office -- have yet to explain Angola, Mozambique, the situation in the Horn of Africa or the terrorists in Rhodesia. One thing is certain: Soviet successes will not breed caution in the Kremlin. Rather, the reverse.
Those in the Carter administration who are not even inclined to protest the recent Soviet moves assure us that, sooner or later, the Soviets will make serious mistakes and our doing nothing will hasten that day.
But to say, as they do, that all is well because the Soviets are creating their own Vietnam is nonsense. These Carter advisers seem to forget that the Soviets won in Vietnam and they intend to win again -- this time in Africa. They learned the true lesson of the Vietnam war: certainty of purpose and ruthlessness of execution wins wars. Vietnam held no terror for the Soviets as it did for so many Americans. And, adventures in Africa hold no terror for them either.
To say, as some in the administration do, that African nationalism will stop the Soviets is the weakest reed of all. The reason is simple: African nationalism, as such, does not exist. No African government has yet condemned the Russians, nor do the halls of the Organization of African Unity ring with anti-Soviet slogans -- perhaps because those halls happen to be in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia.
The criticism by African states of the Soviets that the administration seems to be so desperately hoping for will not materialize. After all, there is in Africa, as around the world, a healthy respect for power and the determined use of power.
One veteran West European diplomat put the African situation in perspective recently. He was quoted as saying: "This situation is going to make the leaders of a lot of these small, weak nations stop and think. And what do they see on the American side? Apparent indecision, attempts to talk, a reluctance to give weapons to friends" -- and, he might have added, a "belief that there are nasty, immoral wars of imperialist aggression and nice clean wars of national liberation."
The administration's uncertainty of purpose isn't confined to the world's current hot spots. It is apparent even in our own hemisphere.
That White House tally sheet I mentioned listed its "accomplishments" in Latin America. It said, "The administration has developed a new global approach to Latin America...."
Well, what it has done from the beginning was to accept the notions fashionable in the most liberal circles that surrender of the Panama Canal and rapprochement with Cuba were the keys to successful relations with Latin America.
Nothing could have been further from the truth. Of Panama, I have already had a good deal to say. But let me say again, we have earned no respect or lasting affection in Latin America with these treaties.
Unfortunately, our policy toward Latin America has not only entailed friendship for one dictator who is a sworn enemy and for another who routinely suppresses human rights and may be involved in the worst sort of corruption -- that policy has also entailed hostility toward our friends.
Let me cite just one example, Brazil. An ally in World War II, (contributing a division which saw hard action in Europe), a friend through most of the '60s and now a great hope for contributing to the future industrial strength of the West, Brazil now finds itself turned on by us -- with a vengeance. Whatever the motives, human rights or worries over nuclear proliferation, the ends did not justify the means. The result is that we have nearly lost a friend without achieving any of the administration's professed objectives.
It is time to try another approach, an approach based on reality and not the slogans and romantic notions of ideologues who just happen to have access to the Oval Office.
First, let us end this cycle of American indifference, followed by frenzied activity in Latin America (as it has been elsewhere). It leaves our southern neighbors bewildered and cynical. Instead, I propose a steadier course in which Latin America's growing importance is recognized not as an act of charity, but in our own self-interest. Latin America, with all its resources and vitality, should be encouraged to join not the Third World, much less the Communists' Second World, but the First World -- that community of stable, prosperous and free nations of Western Europe, North America and Japan.
Today, there is hope that much of Latin America might do so. First, many nations have learned the cost of Socialist experimentation: Argentina under the Perons, Chile under Allende, Peru under Velasco, Mexico under Echeverria. All suffered economic catastrophe. Their successors learned the bitter truth that defying the laws of economics benefits no one and, in fact, hurts most the poor whose cause those earlier leaders so demagogically espoused.
Today, as a result of those experiments which went so badly out of control, more and more of our neighbors are turning to the free market as a model of development. Their acceptance of economic rationality should be neither ignored nor penalized but actively encouraged.
At the same time, we must recognize that Latin America is once again leaving a period of strictly military rule and entering a more democratic phase. But in this case the United States is doing too much pushing, rather than too little.
Unhappily, the change from military to civilian rule is not an easy one. Nor can it be rushed. If it is, we will only succeed in creating weak and vulnerable democratic governments that will soon be swept out of power by just another generation of military strongmen even more convinced of the defects of democracy.
Above all, we want a free and prosperous Latin America. And, to obtain that, we cannot continue to reward our self-declared enemies and then turn around and punish our friends.
That leads me again to Panama. The treaties that have occupied so much of our attention in recent months represent both the good instincts and the bad impulses of American diplomacy.
The bad, for reasons I have repeated on many occasions: the feeling that we are guilty of some sin for which we must now atone and our inability to say "no," not out of truculence, but because it was the proper thing to say to secure our interests and to reaffirm our greater responsibility, which is leadership of all that remains of the free world.
Yes, the treaties represent the good instincts of American diplomacy, too -- a spirit of generosity and willingness to change with times. A good foreign policy must have both elements: the need to say "no" and the willingness to change, in just the right proportions. Unfortunately, accepting change because it seems fashionable to do so, with little real regard for the consequences, seems to dominate our foreign policy today.
Too many in positions of importance believe that through generosity and self-effacement we can avoid trouble, whether it's with Panama and the canal or the Soviet Union and SALT.
But, like it or not, trouble will not be avoided. The American people and their elected leaders will continue to be faced with hard choices and difficult moments, for resolve is continually being tested by those who envy us our prosperity and begrudge us our freedom.
America will remain great and act responsibly so long as it exercises power -- wisely, and not in the bullying sense -- but exercises it, nonetheless.
Leadership is a great burden. We grow weary of it at times. And the Carter administration, despite its own cheerful propaganda about accomplishments, reflects that weariness.
But if we are not to shoulder the burdens of leadership in the free world, then who will?
The alternatives are neither pleasant nor acceptable. Great nations which fail to meet their responsibilities are consigned to the dust bin of history. We grew from that small, weak republic which had as its assets spirit, optimism, faith in God and an unshakeable belief that free men and women could govern themselves wisely. We became the leader of the free world, an example for all those who cherish freedom.
If we are to continue to be that example -- if we are to preserve our own freedom -- we must understand those who would dominate us and deal with them with determination.
We must shoulder our burden with our eyes fixed on the future, but recognizing the realities of today, not counting on mere hope or wishes. We must be willing to carry out our responsibility as the custodian of individual freedom. Then we will achieve our destiny to be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see.
